Olympus E-3

[juicy]

Hi!

Seems that Olympus has finally launched a competitive pro-model with 10.1 mpix sensor.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/

Cheers,
J

[wilburdl]

Honestly, I wouldn't call that competitive. 10MP 4/3? No thanks. It should be a heckuva lot cheaper. If I was new I'd either go Nikon or Canon which seem to have better features and bigger sensors.

[BernardLanguillier]

Honestly, I wouldn't call that competitive. 10MP 4/3? No thanks. It should be a heckuva lot cheaper. If I was new I'd either go Nikon or Canon which seem to have better features and bigger sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The only thing is those Leica lenses...

Cheers,
Bernard

[juicy]

Hi!

Yes, the lenses...  

I would not compare the E-3 to P-45 or 1Dsmk3. But the pixel count is very similar to 1Dmk3 and many others. Talking about the image quality of this new camera is pure speculation at the moment but there are certainly many people who have been waiting for the update to E-1.

There are many nature photographers for example who gladly forgo a couple of pixels in favor of the ability to use an extremely sharp and small 150mm f2 lens (300mm f2 eqv) or 300mm f2.8 (600mm f2.8 eqv). I have no idea if the IQ of the new E-3 is anywhere comparable to the 1Dmk3 (probably not at high ISO) but there are many convenience benefits with smaller lenses when bushwhacking your way for 35 miles to a more remote location, for example. Or when travelling as a photojournalist. So I would not dismis this camera straight away especially if allready owning some fine Zuiko-glass.

Cheers,
J

[BernardLanguillier]

So I would not dismis this camera straight away especially if allready owning some fine Zuiko-glass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed, I am sure that it will have a good following here in Japan where people tend to be a lot less polarized along the Canon/Nikon lines and select camera according to very specific characteristics.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Sfleming]

I picked up an E-510 two kit lens package a couple months ago.  Love it.  Nice controls.  If only they had put the swivel monitor on it.  Nice jpegs though right out of the camera.  Love the ease of setting parameters and all the direct control buttons.  I was seriously thinking of getting the E-3 when it came out but just could not bring myself to buy into the 4/3 system to the tune of several thou for the serious glass.

[BJL]

I am planning to exit these forums, simply because I fear wasting too much time, but I might as well go out with some comments on the E-3, as one of the few FourThirds users here.

In summary, I want it: it is a better choice for my priorities that alternatives like the Nikon D300 (though I am very impressed by its price/performance), Canon 40D, Sony A700, or even the now fire-sale priced Canon 5D.

Increasing resolution has never been a high priority for me, nor action freezing high shutter speeds in low light and the big heavy telephoto lenses that go with the bigger pixels and bigger sensors needed to achieve that. So going beyond 10MP with decent ISO 1600 and usable ISO 3200 would be of very slight value for me: those are the sort of improvements that I would be happy to take, but only if they came at little extra cost and without sacrificing other features of greater value to my photographic interests.

On the other hand, I am greatly attracted by the E-3 offerings of
- in-body stabilization that allows hand-holding in low light even with wide angles (for situations like interior shots with no flash or tripod, but without very fast subject motion to deal with)
[The A700 has this too, but not the D300, 40D or 5D, and Nikon has no stabilized standard zooms, the greatest black mark for me with the D300.]
- Live View for precise manual focusing on a tripod with zoomable live view.
[The D300 and 40D have this too, but not the A700 or 5D. Maybe available soon on a '5DMkII'.]
- 100% viewfinder coverage
[The D300 has this too, but not the 40D, A700, or 5D.]
- A bit more telephoto reach and macro working distance with any given focal length than other SLR systems from the higher absolute sensor resolution (lp/mm) given by its closer pixel spacing. This gives me a somewhat more portable "bird, bug and flower" kit.

I am also happy with the idea of greatly improved AF over the E-1, since AF speed and flexibility has till now been the biggest weakness for Olympus, probably due to its late entry to the AF SLR market. However, this is a relatively minor issue for me, as I do little action photography and the E-1's AF has caused few problems for me.

I will not even pretend to care about frame rate: my operating speed in measured in seconds per frame.

[Ken R]

Hi!

Seems that Olympus has finally launched a competitive pro-model with 10.1 mpix sensor.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e3/

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While a nice alternative the E3 looks quite dated in design. I think the 4/3's system doesnt fit well in the high end DSLR market so paying more for a pro body doesnt make much sense when a E410 is excellent and its very affordable.

However, lenses like the 14-35mm f2 and 35-100mm f2 make me consider the system...

But the Oly lens prices are ridiculous, man $5500 for a 90-250mm f2.8!! I mean, 70-200mm f2.8's with IS that cover full frame 35mm cost less than $2000! Where is the economy of the smaller format...

[juicy]

While a nice alternative the E3 looks quite dated in design. I think the 4/3's system doesnt fit well in the high end DSLR market so paying more for a pro body doesnt make much sense when a E410 is excellent and its very affordable.

However, lenses like the 14-35mm f2 and 35-100mm f2 make me consider the system...

But the Oly lens prices are ridiculous, man $5500 for a 90-250mm f2.8!! I mean, 70-200mm f2.8's with IS that cover full frame 35mm cost less than $2000! Where is the economy of the smaller format...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi!

Ridiculous pricing or not, there aren't many (comparable fov) 500mm f/2.8 zooms out there and the faster 500mm (f/4) primes cost more than this Olympus zoom. If mating Canon or Nikon zoom with an extender to get the same reach, they are not f/2.8 lenses any more. Besides, the pro series Olympus lenses have been regarded optically excellent (not cheap). Thus there may not be many cost advantages in smaller formats compared to different APS or FF sensors but for some types of photography there certainly are other benefits like size and weight. And being able to have decent WA-lenses is not a bad thing either.

Anyway, at the moment I use FF Canons and have no personal agenda here. What is important in my mind is that there are different tools which suit different people and different types of photography and it's interesting to see how things develop.

Cheers,
J

[BJL]

I think the 4/3's system doesnt fit well in the high end DSLR market so paying more for a pro body doesnt make much sense when a E410 is excellent and its very affordable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree that FourThirds is not well suited to the high resolution or/or high shutter speed, low light needs of much high end DSLR work, but then again , US$1700 is far from "high end" pricing. And for me, price determines where a product will compete in the market place, not vague adjectives like "pro". (Aside: the usage of the description "pro" seems to correspond almost exactly to a couple of features: a robust environmental sealed body with 100% viewfinder coverage!)

The E-3 is a US$1700 body, so the "pro" designated body that it will compete with most closely is the $1800 Nikon D300, and the other closest competitors are the Canon 40D and Sony A700 (despite their "non-pro" 95% VF coverage!) Clearly different people will weigh differently factors like pixel count; in-body stabilization of all lenses; image noise at high ISO speeds; Live View on an articulated screen; Live View on a larger, higher resolution screen with contrast detection AF; viewfinder coverage and image size; frame rate; availability of the type of lenses that one wants most; and so on.


Most E-3 buyers will probably never buy any of the lenses you mention: instead the 12-60/2.8-4 SWD and 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD are probably going to be the core of a higher level kit, with many of us staying with the lower priced, slower focusing, but still very good 14-54/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5 non-SWD.


Finally, it is very strange to compare a longer lens with larger maximum aperture diameter for a smaller format [90-250/2.8] to a shorter one with smaller maximum aperture diameter for a larger format that is currently limited to distinctly lower sensor resolution in l/mm [70-200/2.8] . Even allowing for cropping to the same 10MP as the E-3, matching what 250mm gives with the E-3 requires a bit over 400mm with the 5D, the only 24x36mm body option at a similar price to the E-3. To put it another way, using a 70-200 on the 5D and cropping to the FOV of 250mm on the E-3 can give only about 3.4MP.

The idea that one can get similar telephoto results from a larger format by using the same focal length and cropping fails so long as the pixel density and sensor resolution in l/mm is substantially higher for the smaller sensor.

[Ray]

I am planning to exit these forums, simply because I fear wasting too much time, but I might as well go out with some comments on the E-3, as one of the few FourThirds users here.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I think a farewell speech is in order here.    

BJL and I go back a long time on this forum. We've mostly disagreed but sometimes not. I think we had similar views on DoF issues.

However, the major point of continuing difference of opinion was with regard to the potential of small format cameras. I've always been of the opinion that ultimately the only advantage of the small format is weight, size and cost.

In terms of image quality there's really no contest and probably never will be. One sacrifices one set of advantages for another set of advantages, depending on one's requirements. The principle of 'the best tool for the job' rules.

I get the impression that BJL has no intention of ever buying a large format printer, so the Olympus 4/3rds format suits him and is adequate for his purposes. It probably more closely resembles the 35mm film format in the old hierarchy of formats (despite a different aspect ratio), full frame 35mm digital having long since overtaken the performance of 35mm film in every department.

Since this forum is now almost dominated by MFDB users, it becomes a little anachronistic to continue championing the smaller format. The 1Ds3 is going to struggle to compete on the basis of sheer image quality with the latest MFDBs, although it might, on balance, be a better option than any current 22mp MFDB.

So 'fare thee well', BJL. Your input was much appreciated. At least you haven't requested, in a fit of pique, to be unregistered like some who will deprive everyone of doing a member name search on their contribution.

Cheers! and best wishes,

[Rob C]

I don´t think favouring one format over another is any reason to call it a day: the world of photography is, ultimately, about the image on paper.

As long as we are interested in the picture, then there is absolutely no need, reason nor even excuse for feeling bad because another person disagrees about the mechanical roadway to the result.

I would ask BJL to reconsider.

Ciao - Rob C

[juicy]

Hi!

I don´t think favouring one format over another is any reason to call it a day: the world of photography is, ultimately, about the image on paper.

As long as we are interested in the picture, then there is absolutely no need, reason nor even excuse for feeling bad because another person disagrees about the mechanical roadway to the result.

Words of wisdom, Rob! Down-to-earth positive contributions make this forum such a great place.

To BJL: It would be nice to hear about real user experiences concerning E-3. Anyway, I can't think of a better reason to leave this forum than (hopefully) do more photography. Still I think that Rob said it perfectly:

I would ask BJL to reconsider.

Cheers,
J

[eronald]

Hi!
Words of wisdom, Rob! Down-to-earth positive contributions make this forum such a great place.

To BJL: It would be nice to hear about real user experiences concerning E-3. Anyway, I can't think of a better reason to leave this forum than (hopefully) do more photography. Still I think that Rob said it perfectly:

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd be interested in user experiences of the E3.

Edmund

[BJL]

I admit that I am having trouble leaving, and probably will not completely. But I am determined to avoid getting into any more acrimonious debts; a bad habit of mine at times, even recently.

But Ray, I disagree that we disagree on one thing! I agree that size, weight and cost are the essential reasons for many photographers to prefer a smaller format to a larger one. For example, I desire 600mm and even 800mm "35mm equivalent FOV", and if the forthcoming Canon 800/5.6 is small, light and cheap, I will become far more interested in 24x36mm format!

I mostly dispute the _extent_ of the advantages sometimes claimed for larger formats, and the likely _extent_ of cost reductions on larger sensors, and thus differ as to how the market shares for different formats will end up.


As a compromise, if and when I get an E-3, I will report on it!

[Ray]

I admit that I am having trouble leaving, and probably will not completely.

BJL,
Sort of half pregnant then?  

But Ray, I disagree that we disagree on one thing!

What! We can't even agree on which points we disagree?  

I admit I'm a bit nonplussed about the small 4/3rds format. The differences in format size between it and full frame 35mm are actually greater than the differences between old 35mm film and the next step up to MF, 6x4.5cm film. The differences in aspect ratios is also analagous., 6x4.5 being 4/3rds.

The difference in format size (between 4/3rds and 35mm) also is much greater than the difference between FF 35mm DSLRs and MFDBs.

At the current stage of digital photography we have only one full frame sensor that is the same size as the film it replaced, and that's FF 35mm DSLR.

The Olympus 4/3rds is a new format with matching lenses and is therefore full frame, but I'm still waiting to see the optical advantages of this sub-35mm camera.

Its 300/2.8 lens gives an effective 35mm reach of 600mm and at f2.8 you get more DoF than the 600/4 gives you at f4, with FF 35mm. That's the one and only advantage. I can think of no more. All else is either about the same, including weight and cost, or a distinct disadvantage. That 300mm Zuiko lens is terrible heavy and even more expensive than the Canon 600/4. You probably remember I did a comparison of weight and cost some time ago. I think the Zuiko 300/2.8 was marginally lighter than the Canon 600/4 but significantly more expensive. Add the cost of a good Canon FF body and the situation changes of course. There's no getting away from the fact that a 1Ds3 + 600/4 is both heavier and more expensive than an E-3 + 300/2.8, but the image quality of the 1Ds3 + 600/4 lens is bound to be much better by a very significant margin.

This is the problem with the 4/3rds. You can find situations where body plus lens combinations are lighter and cheaper than either ff 35mm or cropped format 35mm (for same FoV), but not without sacrifice of image quality. That's why I say it's a true miniature format in the same way that 35mm film was a miniature format that could never compete quality-wise with 6x4.5, the next step up.

[BernardLanguillier]

Its 300/2.8 lens gives an effective 35mm reach of 600mm and at f2.8 you get more DoF than the 600/4 gives you at f4, with FF 35mm. That's the one and only advantage. I can think of no more. All else is either about the same, including weight and cost, or a distinct disadvantage. That 300mm Zuiko lens is terrible heavy and even more expensive than the Canon 600/4. You probably remember I did a comparison of weight and cost some time ago. I think the Zuiko 300/2.8 was marginally lighter than the Canon 600/4 but significantly more expensive. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

According to the Olympus and Canon web pages:

- Olympus 300 f2.8: 3290gr - 660.000 Yen street price in Japan
- Canon 600 f4 VR: 5360 gr - 1.040.000 Yen street price in Japan

I call that huge gaps.

Regards,
Bernard

[Ray]

According to the Olympus and Canon web pages:

- Olympus 300 f2.8: 3290gr - 660.000 Yen street price in Japan
- Canon 600 f4 VR: 5360 gr - 1.040.000 Yen street price in Japan

I call that huge gaps.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

According to the Olympus and Canon web pages:

- Olympus 300 f2.8: 3290gr - 660.000 Yen street price in Japan
- Canon 600 f4 VR: 5360 gr - 1.040.000 Yen street price in Japan

I call that huge gaps.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
The comparison I made was some time ago. It looks like I got the price/weight comparison the wrong way round. Whilst the weight was substantally less, the price was substantially more. The price of the Zuiko has since come down to the point where it is only marginally more expensive than the Canon 600/4.

A search on Google came up on the first page, Amazon.com, selling the Canon 600/4 for $7,500. The best price I can find for the Zuiko 300/2.8 is $7,000. The best price I can find for the Canon 600/4 is $6,700.

The point I make is still valid. People pay huge sums of money for recognisable improvements in image quality, beyond the pixel peeping level.

Selling a camera system that has an advantage of either a few grams in weight or a few dollars in cost, but a significant disadvantage in image quality is not inspiring.

Okay! 2kg is significant. The situation is now also improved in price. But a 2Kg weight saving in relation to a $2000 dollar price increase (which is what it was) is not so inspiring, taking image quality into consideration.

The bottom line is, the E-3 plus the finest lens that Zuiko has ever made will not be a patch on the 1Ds3 +600/4, or for that matter the new 5D + 600/4, which we all expect will be announced soon.

But thanks for pointing this out, Bernard. It's good to know you are still alert   .

[BernardLanguillier]

The bottom line is, the E-3 plus the finest lens that Zuiko has ever made will not be a patch on the 1Ds3 +600/4, or for that matter the new 5D + 600/4, which we all expect will be announced soon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It depends on the application.

There are applications for which handholding is a must, and that is basically impossible with the Canon.

There are also applications for which weight and space are critical (bird photography in remote places that can only be reached by trekking for instance), and the Olympus offers tremendous value here also.

We do now know yet how good the sensor is, but my guess is that it is pretty good.

Cheers,
Bernard